Living in Kalifornia and having some of the strictest laws we have 10 round limit along with bullet button wich sucks ! I would be all for it across the country as long as they leave "the rifle" alone.

So if you can't have "it" you don't want anyone else to either
Take your ball & go home

I like to control my guns, with proper stance, sight picture, sight alignment and sqqqquuuuzzzzeeeee. I had to look up "bullet button" lmao... there is no way in hell I'm pushing an Allen wrench or 223 tip into the bottom of my gun to get the magazine to fall free. California looks like a beautiful state with ideal weather year round but it has so many different laws and restrictions on everything that really no-one else has.

You forgot follow through, the first time I heard about bullet buttons I was shocked at how anyone would let restrictions on guns go that far.

People in any state that currently has an assault weapons ban on their books wouldn't be ok if the rest of the country shared I their misery, but rather those laws are positive proof that weapons bans don't work. We had a shooting in NJ a few months ago and the killer used an AR. And NJ has quite strict laws regarding them as well.

People if you go around saying "look at CA, NJ, MA, CT laws. If we can deal with them so can the rest of the US", to pro gun-control people what you're saying to them is: even with restrictions in place these assault weapons are still the problem.

So we need to keep our misery to ourselves and fight the fight by voting out those officials and band together as a union of United States not separated by the 10th amendment but rather united by the 1st AND 2nd.

People in any state that currently has an assault weapons ban on their books wouldn't be ok if the rest of the country shared I their misery, but rather those laws are positive proof that weapons bans don't work. We had a shooting in NJ a few months ago and the killer used an AR. And NJ has quite strict laws regarding them as well.

People if you go around saying "look at CA, NJ, MA, CT laws. If we can deal with them so can the rest of the US", to pro gun-control people what you're saying to them is: even with restrictions in place these assault weapons are still the problem.

So we need to keep our misery to ourselves and fight the fight by voting out those officials and band together as a union of United States not separated by the 10th amendment but rather united by the 1st AND 2nd.

If you are saying that you think that there should be more gun control then you should probably not say so on this forum, most if not all of us believe in no gun control at all.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say what I think he means. What I think he's trying to say is that a little compromise might do us all some good. Say, for instance, you were presented with the following options:

A) Remove all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns either via confiscation or a voluntary surrender through a government buyback program (ie, you turn in a "No-no" Firearm in exchange for cash and/or a voucher to purchase an "Approved" Firearm (similar to what they did in Australia) OR they just outright ban all "No-no" Firearms completely and make it a felony to buy, sell, manufacture, import or export said firearms (most likely a situation like this wouldn't be retroactive so if you have them, you can keep them, but you never know how far they're willing to go).

-OR-

B) Remove all "No-no" components from the market such as high-cap magazines, detachable magazines (unless you install a "Bullet Button" which I had to look up myself), bayonets, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc. but keep the ability to buy, sell, transport, import and export said "Scary Guns".

I don't know about you guys, but "B" would be my choice. And I think that's what he's saying. Anti-gunners will be going for the whole shebang. If they had their way, there wouldn't be a single gun in existence except for those carried by our law enforcement and military personnel and, of course, the God-forsaken UN. If it does come to a push for an outright ban on firearms, it might be time for us, as gun owners and lovers of the shooting sports, to look for ways to compromise. It would probably work in our favor to garner support and affirmation for our cause and make it seem as if the anti-gunners are the real radicals.

I know that and you know that, but people on the fence or people not familiar with guns and the shooting sports would be more likely to let incidents like those in Aurora and Connecticut pull on their heartstrings. BUT... Give them a bill that is an outright radical ban and infringement on the 2nd Amendment and show a calm gun-owning community willing to compromise to keep our ability to enjoy what we love, and we'll score the most votes. Eventually, we could get it lifted and go back to normal, but lifting an outright ban would be nearly impossible once it is placed in effect.

Just my 2 cents.

__________________Three old hunters were walking through the woods one day. The first looks over at the others and says, "Windy isn't it?" The second says, "I was sure it was Thursday." The third says, "Me too! The heck with hunting, let's go get a beer!"

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say what I think he means. What I think he's trying to say is that a little compromise might do us all some good. Say, for instance, you were presented with the following options:

A) Remove all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns either via confiscation or a voluntary surrender through a government buyback program (ie, you turn in a "No-no" Firearm in exchange for cash and/or a voucher to purchase an "Approved" Firearm (similar to what they did in Australia) OR they just outright ban all "No-no" Firearms completely and make it a felony to buy, sell, manufacture, import or export said firearms (most likely a situation like this wouldn't be retroactive so if you have them, you can keep them, but you never know how far they're willing to go).

-OR-

B)Remove all "No-no" components from the market such as high-cap magazines, detachable magazines (unless you install a "Bullet Button" which I had to look up myself), bayonets, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc. but keep the ability to buy, sell, transport, import and export said "Scary Guns".

I don't know about you guys, but "B" would be my choice. And I think that's what he's saying. Anti-gunners will be going for the whole shebang. If they had their way, there wouldn't be a single gun in existence except for those carried by our law enforcement and military personnel and, of course, the God-forsaken UN. If it does come to a push for an outright ban on firearms, it might be time for us, as gun owners and lovers of the shooting sports, to look for ways to compromise. It would probably work in our favor to garner support and affirmation for our cause and make it seem as if the anti-gunners are the real radicals.

I know that and you know that, but people on the fence or people not familiar with guns and the shooting sports would be more likely to let incidents like those in Aurora and Connecticut pull on their heartstrings. BUT... Give them a bill that is an outright radical ban and infringement on the 2nd Amendment and show a calm gun-owning community willing to compromise to keep our ability to enjoy what we love, and we'll score the most votes. Eventually, we could get it lifted and go back to normal, but lifting an outright ban would be nearly impossible once it is placed in effect.

I'm with you man. I really am. I agree we shouldn't have to compromise on our Constitutional Rights. But the anti-gunners don't see it this way.

But, if no one is willing to compromise, then we're going to lose them altogether. Seriously, I'd give up my 30-round PMAGs for 10-round PMAGs if it meant I could keep my gun.

I guess I'm alone here.

__________________Three old hunters were walking through the woods one day. The first looks over at the others and says, "Windy isn't it?" The second says, "I was sure it was Thursday." The third says, "Me too! The heck with hunting, let's go get a beer!"

Honestly, I'm not ready to give up anything. I was never military, but I respect what they have done to protect our rights. It sickens me that anyone would try and undo any of the rights we have that so many of our men and women have fought and died for. I will fight tooth and nail to keep my ability to have what is mine and what our military has protected for me, but if it came down to the option of banning some things vs. banning everything, I'm going with the compromise. That's all I was saying.

It's all speculation at this point anyway. Washington is notorious for getting absolutely NOTHING done so I'm guessing that's what will happen here. The Republicans will vote No and the Dems will vote Yes and it will be a standstill just like it always is and nothing will get done. Somebody will get up and filibuster their way to the closing date by reading from the phonebook or the newspaper or old Time magazines or something. At least that's what I'm hoping for.

Please understand that I'm on your side here. I'm not willing to give up anything at this point. But if I had the choice of some or all, I'll give some.

__________________Three old hunters were walking through the woods one day. The first looks over at the others and says, "Windy isn't it?" The second says, "I was sure it was Thursday." The third says, "Me too! The heck with hunting, let's go get a beer!"

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say what I think he means. What I think he's trying to say is that a little compromise might do us all some good. Say, for instance, you were presented with the following options:

A) Remove all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns either via confiscation or a voluntary surrender through a government buyback program (ie, you turn in a "No-no" Firearm in exchange for cash and/or a voucher to purchase an "Approved" Firearm (similar to what they did in Australia) OR they just outright ban all "No-no" Firearms completely and make it a felony to buy, sell, manufacture, import or export said firearms (most likely a situation like this wouldn't be retroactive so if you have them, you can keep them, but you never know how far they're willing to go).

-OR-

B) Remove all "No-no" components from the market such as high-cap magazines, detachable magazines (unless you install a "Bullet Button" which I had to look up myself), bayonets, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc. but keep the ability to buy, sell, transport, import and export said "Scary Guns".

I don't know about you guys, but "B" would be my choice. And I think that's what he's saying. Anti-gunners will be going for the whole shebang. If they had their way, there wouldn't be a single gun in existence except for those carried by our law enforcement and military personnel and, of course, the God-forsaken UN. If it does come to a push for an outright ban on firearms, it might be time for us, as gun owners and lovers of the shooting sports, to look for ways to compromise. It would probably work in our favor to garner support and affirmation for our cause and make it seem as if the anti-gunners are the real radicals.

I know that and you know that, but people on the fence or people not familiar with guns and the shooting sports would be more likely to let incidents like those in Aurora and Connecticut pull on their heartstrings. BUT... Give them a bill that is an outright radical ban and infringement on the 2nd Amendment and show a calm gun-owning community willing to compromise to keep our ability to enjoy what we love, and we'll score the most votes. Eventually, we could get it lifted and go back to normal, but lifting an outright ban would be nearly impossible once it is placed in effect.

Just my 2 cents.

so Matthew, like i posed the question to him, and you are playing devil advocates here, how far are you willing to back up, before you say enough is enough? if you give an inch, they WILL take a mile! is far enough, when all we have are rocks and sticks to defend ourselves with okay with you?

i'm sorry, if what i am saying offends your delicate senses so be it, but if you don't believe in the 2nd admendment and the Constitution, and "Shall Not Be Infringed" as what law abiding gun owners should live by and believe in more concessions and compromise on our parts, and this is what you believe, then IMO, you have no business owning any firearms, and certainly have no business trying to speak for me and others who believe as i do about gun rights.